Douglas v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2006] QLC 28

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Douglas v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2006] QLC 28 PARTIES: Clifford C Douglas (appellant) v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (respondent) FILE NOS.: AV2005/1835 and AV2005/1836 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Jurisdiction – Appeals against Unimproved Valuation DELIVERED ON: 12 May 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Coolangatta JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: Mr BR O'Connor ORDER: The Court has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals. CATCHWORDS: Jurisdiction – Late filing of appeal – Whether reasonable excuse APPEARANCES: Mr C Douglas for the appellant Mr W Isdale, (Crown Law) for the respondent Background: [1] The issue for determination in these matters is whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeals lodged some 2 months after the due date. Section 57 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 allows for "reasonable excuse" as a cause for such delay. "57.(1) If a notice of appeal is filed in the Land Court registry after the time stated in section 55(2), the registrar of the court must notify the owner that the appeal may not be heard unless the owner satisfies the court that the owner has a reasonable excuse for filing the notice after the time stated. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 Example of reasonable excuse – The notice of the chief executive’s decision or the notice of appeal was lost or delayed in the ordinary course of post." The question then is whether the explanation for the late lodgement advanced by the appellant falls within the term "reasonable excuse" as interpreted by the cases, particularly those since the introduction of s.57 as amended in 2000. [2] The authorities on the term "reasonable excuse" or similar expressions are usefully collected in the decision of the Land Court in Anthony v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, 10 November 2000. In essence, the authorities establish that the excuse must be "substantial" and "what one is looking for is some cause which a reasonable man would regard as sufficient a cause, consistent with a reasonable standard of conduct, the kind of thing which one might have expected to delay the taking of action by a reasonable man". Background [3] Mr Douglas initially objected to the issued Departmental valuation and was subsequently notified in writing, in accord with standard practice, that his objection was unsuccessful. As part of this written advice, he was informed that he could appeal to the Land Court. Mr Douglas then requested by phone that the Department (Gold Coast office) forward the relevant appeal form (Form 59) so he could pursue his appeal. [4] This Form 59 provides detailed instruction as to where the completed form is to be sent – one copy to the Department and one copy to the Land Court. The address of the Land Court is clearly stated on the back of the form. [5] There is some uncertainty as to what Mr Douglas was told when he rang the Department to request this Form 59. Mr Douglas states he was left with the impression that he merely had to forward a copy to the Department and that any subsequent forwarding to the Land Court would be arranged by the Department. [6] When the Department received the appeal form it was obviously under the impression that such was its copy of the appeal and that a separate one had been forwarded to the Land Court. It was some months later when the responsible valuer, Mr McDonagh was proactively reviewing Land Court appeals and realised the Land Court had not advised of an appeal in the Douglas matter having been set down. He then sent a copy of the appeal received by the Department to the Court and this was received by the Court on 17 November 2005. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 Decision [7] In the above circumstances, I am not convinced that reasonable excuse has been established. Mr Douglas had in his possession the correct Form 59 for court appeal which had clear, if somewhat detailed instructions as to the need to lodge with the Land Court. He only sent one copy with the Department. The latter would not have been aware that no copy had been sent to the Land Court until it inquired at a much later stage. There is not sufficient evidence that a departmental officer had misled Mr Douglas as to the required procedure, particularly as such is stated on the back of Form 59. This case is distinguishable from where the appellant may have been given the wrong form or where a departmental officer had given the appellant misleading advice. [8] Mr Isdale, counsel for the Department, has suggested some improvement may be possible for the Form 59 to make it clearer to an appellant as to what he has to do to properly appeal. I understand that the Land Court Registrar is in the process of developing a new form. Presumably liaison on this will take place between the Registrar and Director of Valuations, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water. [9] While outside the role of the court to order, Mr McDonagh, departmental valuer, indicated at the hearing that he would be prepared to informally discuss the present disputed valuations and appeal grounds with Mr Douglas should the jurisdiction decision not be decided in Mr Douglas' favour. I will leave this to the parties to follow further themselves. The result of this decision means that no further avenue of appeal to the Land Court exists for the current valuations. Order The Court has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals. BR O'CONNOR JUDICIAL REGISTRAR -- 3 of 3 --